3 ms·

If you had a perfect lossless compressor (one that could compress anything down to it's fundamental kolmogorov complexity), you would also definitionally have a

If you had a perfect lossless compressor (one that could compress anything down to it's fundamental kolmogorov complexity), you would also definitionally have an oracle that could compute any computable function. Intelligence would be a subset of the capabilities of such an oracle.

vidarh 3y ago
A universal turing machine can compute any computable function. That doesn't make it intelligent, because it won't without direction.
- AbrahamParangi 3y ago
  Then expand your target to a universal turing machine and instructions to compute any computable function. Do you consider it intelligent then?
  - vidarh 3y ago
    No, because instructions to compute any computable function for an utm only requires a tiny set of instructions on how to generate every possible permutation over forever increasing lengths of tape. It will run forever, and I would agree that in that set there will be an infinite number of functions that when run would be deemed intelligent, but that does not make the computer itself intelligent absent first stumbling on one of those specific programs. EDIT: Put another way, if the potential to be made to compute in a way we would deem intelligent is itself intelligence, then a lump of random particles is intelligent because it could be rearranged into a brain.
    - AbrahamParangi 3y ago
      The analogy is not a random lump of particles but all particles in all configurations, of which you are a subset. Is the set of you plus a rock intelligent?
      - vidarh 3y ago
        This is a fundamentally flawed argument, because a computer is not in all the states it can execute at once, and naively iterating over the set of possible states might well not have found a single intelligence before the heat death of the universe. If we were picking me out of an equally large set of object, then I'd argue that no, the set is not meaningfully intelligent, because the odds of picking me would be negligible enough that it'd be unreasonable in the extreme to assign the set any of my characteristics.

vidarh 3y ago

A universal turing machine can compute any computable function. That doesn't make it intelligent, because it won't without direction.

AbrahamParangi 3y ago
Then expand your target to a universal turing machine and instructions to compute any computable function. Do you consider it intelligent then?
- vidarh 3y ago
  No, because instructions to compute any computable function for an utm only requires a tiny set of instructions on how to generate every possible permutation over forever increasing lengths of tape. It will run forever, and I would agree that in that set there will be an infinite number of functions that when run would be deemed intelligent, but that does not make the computer itself intelligent absent first stumbling on one of those specific programs. EDIT: Put another way, if the potential to be made to compute in a way we would deem intelligent is itself intelligence, then a lump of random particles is intelligent because it could be rearranged into a brain.
  - AbrahamParangi 3y ago
    The analogy is not a random lump of particles but all particles in all configurations, of which you are a subset. Is the set of you plus a rock intelligent?
    - vidarh 3y ago
      This is a fundamentally flawed argument, because a computer is not in all the states it can execute at once, and naively iterating over the set of possible states might well not have found a single intelligence before the heat death of the universe. If we were picking me out of an equally large set of object, then I'd argue that no, the set is not meaningfully intelligent, because the odds of picking me would be negligible enough that it'd be unreasonable in the extreme to assign the set any of my characteristics.